The problem with hate crime laws is that they can be applied to almost anything. Check out this article for an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03plumb.html?_r=2&oref=sloginNo&oref=slogin

The perpetrators here used a gay chatroom to find their victim not because they had any specific animus toward gays, but because they thought he would be easier to overpower. Despite the fact that there was no evidence of “hate,” they were convicted under a hate crime law.

The bill passed by the House creates additional problems by broadening the description of protected classes to encompass “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

Under this law, if a hoodlum chose to rob a woman because he believed she would be easier to overpower than a man, he has committed a “hate crime.” If he chose to attack a man on crutches because he couldn’t chase after him, he has committed a “hate crime.”

Nobody is saying that these acts aren’t immoral and illegal, but they are already criminalized under our existing statutes. The addition of “hate crime” laws merely serves to give prosecutors additional leverage to hold over the head of criminal defendants.

I’m pretty sure that Matthew Shepherd was not attacked because he was easier to overpower than a straight man. A walk down Christopher Street will show you that there are plenty of gays who can beat he crap out of anyone.

That doesn’t really have anything to do with my point. You don’t pass a law to criminalize a wide range of actions because one particular subset of those actions is abhorrent.

That’s like saying “pointing a gun at someone can sometimes be part of an act of terrorism, so from now on, pointing a gun at someone will always be considered terrorism.”

Well your argument fails in that hate crime legislation exists as a protective measure, not as a blanket measure to cover all crimes committed.

Just as not every time a black man is killed is that crime considered a hate crime, the same would hold true in the case of gays, lesbians and transgendered people.

As long as hate crime legislation exists, which it should because hate crimes are still prevalent throughout the country, they definitely need to cover sexuality and gender identity under the umbrella of what can be considered a hate crime. Regardless of people’s individual beliefs about a certain group of people, the role of the government is to protect ALL people.

Oh, just to clarify one thing… I think the language as is in the proposed (or I supposed passed bill) is good because it protects straight people too. You never know what could happen.

Everyone is already protected by the existing laws. It’s not like it was legal to rob or kill gays/women/disabled individuals before this law was proposed.

And yes, while it’s obviously not always automatically going to be used, the simple fact is that it gives prosecutors additional leverage to use in forcing criminal defendants to take plea offers. Rather than look at this as a “protection” for at-risk minorities, it should be viewed as another “tough on crime” law that will simply increase the number and length of prison sentences.

if you read the article I provided, you would have seen an example where despite there being absolutely no evidence of “hate,” people were sentence to additional terms under a hate crime statute.

Do you believe that someone who robs a woman because they believe that she is less likely to fight back than a man should spend 20 years in jail while someone who robbed a woman just because they happened to be the first person they saw should only serve 10?

The most insightful debate on this blog is between two people … in the comments section … of a pretty less than noteworthy post … on a day with TBNYU and Eucliean antics. You guys gonna take this outside?

“By law, Republicans must stir controversy when discussing LGBT issues.”

I laughed. Caught me off guard, nice one.

Great arguments by Matthew, which I totally agree with. Let me add another thought…

If the State is punishing a motive for an action (which results in a crime) that seems to be moving dangerously close to punishing *thought*. Is that justifiable?

Also, what is the message that these laws are really sending? Murder is wrong (and punishable) no matter who does it or who the victim is. Hate-crime legislation just seems to be saying that a murderer better make sure he/she only kills his/her own race/sexuality/gender.

The hate-crime laws may protect the majorities as much as they do the minorities, but the intent of the legislation is undoubtedly not to do so. In reality, the hate-crime laws make it especially bad to kill a gay person, to kill a woman, or to kill a racial minority.

This is not improving equality, these types of laws create inequality by treating specific groups of people differently than others. Extra-protection =/= Equality.

@Chris You’ve hit on the fundamental discrepancy that’s at the root of a lot of liberal/conservative divides–this is just another question of equality of standards vs. equality of outcomes. I think as a society we should strive for the latter, and that justifies preferential treatment for the vulnerable.

If laws exist saying “you cannot kill a man /woman because of his/her race” they should also exist for “you cannot kill a man/woman because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity.”

I could even understand if no hate crimes against GLBT people had ever been committed and you were saying “Okay, there is clearly too much governing here.” However, the fact of the matter is that it is clearly not the case, and that means that it would be discrimination if the government said that sexual orientation was not a part of the equation.

Honestly, I can’t believe this is even a question. I’m all for limited government in matters of someone’s personal life. And I honestly hope for the day when hate-crime legislation won’t be necessary because we’re all beyond that (even though I’m not naive enough to think that that day will ever come)… but until that hypothetical and unlikely moment takes place, there needs to be full coverage.

@ Chris: I fail to see how this is “discriminating” against the majorities. I would be just as appalled if a group of straight men killed a gay man for his sexuality as I would be if a group of gay men killed a straight man for his sexuality. The language in the current legislation covers people from both sides of the spectrum. I can’t think of anything more fair than that.

The language doesn’t make it any worse to kill a gay man/woman, it just makes it equally punishable. I don’t believe I read the clause where it says “Gays get special treatment.” It just says that whether it’s one side or the other, both have equal protection under the law.

@ Leo

I’m not arguing that there should be special hate crime protection for people of particular races while people of particular gender identities go unprotected, I’m saying that these “hate crime” laws as they are currently drafted are uniformly undesirable.

If an LGBT individual is assaulted, the prosecutor should be perpetrated to the full extent of the law. The same should apply if the victim is a racial minority, a religious minority, disabled, etc.

While it’s easy to look at a case of gay-bashing or a racial attack and feel “extra” anger, that doesn’t justify these incredibly over broad laws.

Consider this: Under the proposed law (and many existing hate crime laws) a rapist who chooses his victim because she is female has committed a “hate crime.” Does that make sense?

Matthew, I will concede that your last argument makes sense. And I’m not saying I disagree in theory. However, in practice, I think that as long as there is hate crime legislation, I fully stand behind the decision of the federal government to include sexual orientation/gender identity in the bill.

I also tend to favor limited government… however, in situations like this, where that’s not going to happen anytime soon, I think it’s better to be inclusive than exclusive.

Matthew, I will concede that your last argument makes sense. And I’m not saying I disagree in theory. However, in practice, I think that as long as there is hate crime legislation, I fully stand behind the decision of the federal government to include sexual orientation/gender identity in the bill.

I also tend to favor limited government… however, in situations like this, where that’s not going to happen anytime soon, I think it’s better to be inclusive than exclusive.
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

@Madeline: The standards *are* the outcomes… what are you talking about? How does hate-crime legislation produce any other outcome than unequal standards?

These laws aren’t going to stop hate-crimes. Your flawed logic of “outcomes” is the same logic that “justifies” Affirmative Action which is grossly disfavored even by NYU students. Why? Because it doesn’t work, and it produces inequality.